2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick McElyea, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Ross Curtis appeals the district court order denying his petition to modify his spousal support obligation of $1000.00 per month to his former wife, Cynthia.  He asserts there has been a substantial change in circumstances and he is no longer able to pay the spousal support due to a change in his employment and his “greatly reduced” income.  OPINION HOLDS: Ross has not shown a substantial change in circumstances.  Deferring to the credibility determinations of the district court, we find his earning capacity has not been reduced so as to constitute a substantial change in circumstances.  In the meantime, Cynthia’s earning capacity has diminished with her medical condition.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Van Buren County, Myron L. Gookin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the decree establishing physical care, custody, and support of his child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s decree, finding the court’s well-reasoned ruling to be equitable and in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Monica Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.  REVERSED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (7 pages)

Dean William Dempster III appeals the modification of his victim restitution order, raising claims of improper jurisdiction and res judicata.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the order granting the application to amend the original order.  The effect of our opinion in this appeal, together with our opinion in the prior appeal, is to render the July 12, 2016 order the final pronouncement on the offset of payments against Dempster’s restitution obligation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            Shpresa Thaqi-Cornish appeals the child-custody provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Richard Cornish and the district court’s award of trial attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Although the parties have difficulties with their cooperation and communication, they are able to work together for the child’s benefit.  Because the evidence shows the child is doing well under a joint-physical-care arrangement and granting one parent physical care would be contrary to the child’s best interests, we affirm the joint-physical-care arrangement.  We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Shpresa only $1000 of her trial attorney fees, and we decline to award either party appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Christina appeals the modification of a dissolution decree.  The modification transferred physical care of her seven-year-old daughter G.S. from Christina to G.S.’s father, Joshua.  Christina contends Joshua did not show a substantial change in circumstances or that he would provide superior care.  OPINION HOLDS: Joshua showed both a substantial change in circumstances and that he would provide superior care.  Christina has engaged in a course of conduct substantially interfering with Joshua’s relationship with G.S. by denying him visitation and failing to communicate effectively about her schooling and medical needs.  We find Joshua has shown he can provide superior care and support G.S.’s relationship with Christina.  We affirm the modification. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David May, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (2 pages)

            John Anderson appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: Anderson’s present suit involves the same parties and same claims as the Johnson County lawsuit he previously litigated and lost.  His present suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and we therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.     

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (8 pages)

                David Arch appeals the district court’s order granting Jared White’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the parties entered a valid and enforceable settlement agreement and there was no material breach of the agreement, we affirm the decision of the district court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert A. Hutchison and Jeffrey D. Farrell, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (2 pages)

            Shaquille Trashaun Wade asks us to find the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to five years in prison, after Wade pled guilty to failure to appear, a class “D” felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 811.2 (2017).  The State asserts the district court “balanced the positive aspects of Wade’s life with his persistent failures at probation.”  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G. Reidel and Mark D. Cleve, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Jason Gryp appeals the district court’s imposition of a ten-year sentence of incarceration for his conviction for possession with intent to deliver (methamphetamine), a class “C” felony.  Gryp maintains the court should have suspended his sentence, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to place more weight on positive factors outlined in the report from the presentence investigation and failing to consider the “naturally deterrent effect” of the fact that, during the commission of this crime, Gryp was shot multiple times by the friend to whom he intended to sell methamphetamine.  OPINION HOLDS: It is the role of the sentencing court, in an exercise of its discretion, to determine the weight to place on the various considerations.  The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a term of incarceration.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            Diana Hanken challenges the denial of her request to execute a new will.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Hanken did not overcome the presumption of testamentary incapacity.  We affirm the district court’s denial of Hanken’s request to make a new will.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (4 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to R.W., born in March 2016, and X.W., born in January 2017.  He argues the district court should not have found immediate termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children while granting an additional six months for the mother to work toward reunification.  Moreover, he posits a higher standard should be imposed when determining the best interests of the children when termination is only of one parent’s parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children and an additional six months would not extinguish the need for removal.